Karnataka High Court Quashes KCOCA Charges Against Bitcoin Scam Accused Sirkrishna

A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar said “The filing of two charge sheets and taking of cognizance of two offences within a period of 10 years prior to and preceding the date of commission of the offence under KCOCA is a sine qua non for invocation of the offence and in the absence of the same, the very invocation of KCOCA would be without jurisdiction or authority of law and deserves to be quashed.”

The petitioners had challenged the order dated May 20 passed by the CID's Deputy IG, granting permission to the Investigating Officer (DSP) to invoke Section 3 of the Act.

The petitioners argued that the mandatory requirements of being involved in continuing unlawful activity constituting organised crime is absent as mandated under the Act. There has to be more than one charge sheet being filed and cognizance being taken against the accused for a period preceding 10 years from July 17, 2017.

State opposed the plea saying that as on the date of detection of the Scam at the behest of accused, four charge sheets in the preceding 10 years had been filed and cognizance had been taken, which would constitute continuing unlawful activity amounting to organised crime committed by the accused persons.

The bench noted that Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment of organised "crime". It said the provision mandates punishment for the “crime / offence” and not the “criminal / offender”.

“There is no gainsaying the fact that in criminal law, cognizance is taken by a court of the offence and not the offender and punishment is for the offence committed by the offender.”

Court said it is the date of commission of the offence that has to be reckoned and not the date of detection of the offence. It held,

“In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 3 KCOCA on 17.07.2017 in Crime No.85/2017 and in the absence of the mandatory requirements of charge sheets having been filed and cognizance having been taken within a period of 10 years prior to that date i.e., on 17.07.2017 , it cannot be said that in the pending crime No.85/2017, the offence punishable under Section 3 KCOCA can be invoked as against the accused persons and consequently, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent invoking Section 3 of KCOCA in relation to an offence said to have been committed on 17.07.2017 is clearly without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same deserves to be quashed.”

Court also rejected the contention of the prosecution that the crime is detected only after completion of investigation and it is only the date of detection which has to be reckoned for the purpose of invocation of Section 3 of the KCOCA.

It said, “When none of the provisions of KCOCA contemplate the date of detection of the offence as the date to be reckoned for the purpose of Sections 3, 2(d) 2(e) and 2(f) of the KCOCA. There is absolutely no nexus or connection between the police authorities filing a final report by treating the case as “undetectable” and the date of commission of the offence to be reckoned for the purpose of invocation of KCOCA.”

Allowing the petitions the court directed the Special Court to transmit the records to the jurisdictional Magistrate to consider and dispose of the bail applications filed by the accused persons as expeditiously as possible.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam for Advocate Dilipkumar Gowda R for Petitioners.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty a/w AGA Rahul Cariappa for Respondents

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311

Case Title: Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15622 OF 2024